gitea_issues

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It only says 'List issues', which implies read operation but does not confirm safety, pagination, or any side effects. The description is too brief given the lack of annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. No extraneous content exists. However, it is so brief it sacrifices completeness, preventing a score of 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, or ordering. It does not explain whether the list includes all issues or is paginated, nor what information is returned per issue. This leaves gaps for effective agent usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-described in the schema (repo, owner, state). The description does not repeat schema details, which is acceptable. However, it does not add any extra context (e.g., behavior when state is omitted, or what 'all' includes). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (issues in a repository). It is concise and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gitea_create_issue or gitea_repo_info, so it loses a point for lack of distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitea_repos for listing repos, or gitea_repo_info for repo details). It also does not mention any prerequisites or filtering scope (e.g., state defaults are in schema but not clarified in description). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.